Regardless of how prospects for hemispheric cooperation are approached, there
are several national institutional problems to be considered. They are not easily
resolved because their solution may involve political interests and administrative
structures in various countries. A basic problem is the incomparability of the
units concerned with environmental problems. Unlike national departments for
defense, foreign relations, agriculture or education, environmental program
offices are placed at different levels with different scope and status in different
countries. Even where there are departments for the environment, these agencies
may be subordinate to ministries of agriculture, economics, or health. Some
agencies may be empowered to negotiate internationallyothers may not.
The significance of an environmental office in a national government depends
greatly upon its status in the overall structure of the bureaucracy. Agencies
that cannot negotiate with one another or make even tentative commitments are
unlikely to achieve significant cooperative agreements. A point well made by
Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider in their report for the Council of the
Club of Rome is that national governments are not organized, nor generally prepared,
to deal with transnational environmental issues. The organizational problem
is not unsolvable, but it is novel and will not be readily or easily accomplished.
The capacity to cooperate must be institutionalized at national, regional, and
international levels if positive results are to be achieved.

The problems of harmonizing environmental protection and sustainable development
are not unique to the Americas. To cope with a growing list of transnational
environmental problems, a number of different international arrangements have
been instituted or are being considered by national governments. For example,
the European Community has recognized the necessity to parallel its economic
unification measures with common environmental policies, including the adoption
of environmental impact analysis in all member states. Similarly the proposed
trilateral trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, if
consummated, should contain environmental commitments that will require impact
analysis and assessment. The UNEP Regional Seas program has sponsored a number
of multi-lateral agreements which demonstrate that traditional objections to
multi-national cooperation can be overcome when there is a common interest among
nations to do so.

Today, the principal factor affecting transnational cooperation is the psychological
readiness of people and governments. In a large and growing list of countries,
public opinion appears to be more receptive to protection of the environment
and control of technology than is the government. In many countries, technocratic
bureaucrats have promoted huge dam building, road construction, resource development,
resettlement, and industrialization projects with minimal regard for social
and ecological consequences. Immense cultural and environmental damage has been
done under the excuse of modernization, progress, and development. But countervailing
attitudes are gaining international recognition and may in time be reflected
in national policies.

International institutionalization has developed logically on a regional basis,
as in Europe and around UNEP Regional Seasone of which is the Wider Caribbean
program. A more challenging area for further development today is in the continental
regions of the hemisphere. Although the American states vary greatly in ecological
circumstances, in technological advancement, and in administrative experience,
they are all vulnerable to the socio-environmental impacts of invasive technologies,
and of transnational economic decisions. They are also the planets largest
and most diverse repositories of ecological systems and living species. The
great forests of Amazonia and the unique biota of the Andes and Sierras of Patagonia
and the Arctic might be regarded as territories to be protected, in one sense,
not only for the American peoples, but for all mankind and the future. Efforts
have been made for many years to lay foundations for hemispheric cooperation.
Their effectiveness has fallen short of hopes, partly because agreements were
never realistically institutionalized.

In 1916, a Canadian-American treaty for the protection of migratory birds was
adopted, and in 1936, a treaty for the protection of migratory birds and game
animals was negotiated. In 1940, the Pan American Union sponsored a convention
on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Signatories
were committed to establish parks, reserves, nature monuments, and wilderness
areas. The treaty became effective in 1942 following ratification by five of
the twenty-one signatory nations.11
Signatories, however, were slow to ratify.

In 1948, in an effort to implement this convention, an Inter-American Conference
on Conservation of Renewable Resources was convened in Denver. The terms of
the convention were non-binding and proved to be largely rhetorical. Even so,
precedents are significant and governments may ultimately be pressured to live
up to their commitments. To this end, the rise of environmental NGOs in Latin
American countries has been important. Internal pressure and external encouragement
and example have raised the level of environmental awareness. By 1991, nineteen
countries had ratified the 1940 treaty, some as late as the 1970s and 80san
indication perhaps of changing perspectives.

In 1965, the Organization of American States (successor to the Pan American
Union), held an Inter-American Specialized Conference to Deal with Problems
Related to the Conservation of Natural Resources in the Western Hemisphere.
The recommendations of this conference are as valid now as then. Enforcement
was recognized as a weakness in environmental policy and the conference recommended
that OAS members establish specialized corps with the specific duties
of guards . . . after training by means of technical and administrative courses
to supply them with all the necessary knowledge regarding conservation, guarding,
and control procedures to ensure the effectiveness of their task.12

In Bariloche, Argentina, in 1968 the IUCN sponsored a Latin-American Regional
Conference on Conservation of Renewable Natural Resources. Twenty-six recommendations
of this conference summarized the principal actions required to protect the
environment. The conference on April 2 adopted the Nahuel Huapi Manifesto expressing
determination: . . . to work together, within the framework of a common
philosophy, to safeguard their renewable natural resources by means of the correct
application of science and technology, aiming at the same time to achieve the
highest quality of living for all.13
More definitely institutional and operational was the arrangement which Vice
President of Argentina, Victor H. Martínez, proposed to the juridical committee
of the Organization of American States in 1986 to establish an inter-American
system for monitoring the implementation of environmental agreements.14
Rhetorical statements continue to be issued and may, in time, influence popular
perceptions and the policies of governments. On July 19, 1991, the inter-American
Grupo de los Cien Artistas e Intellectuales, delivered a proposal
for a Latin American Ecological Alliance to the First Ibero-American
Summit of nineteen Latin American presidents meeting in Mexico.15
In October 1991, following a symposium in Morelia, Mexico, the Grupo de los
Cien adopted the Morelia Declaration for presentation to the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development. The Declaration, among other demands,
proposed an International Court of the Environment and the establishment of
the principle of crimes against the environment.16
We have already noted a third indicator of readiness to establish transnational
environmental protection and monitoring in the proposed trilateral trade agreement
between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and there has recently begun
an exploration of a transboundary environmental monitoring system for Canada
and the United States under the aegis of the International Joint Commission.

These arrangements, like others, depend upon action by national governments.
The readiness of governments to enter cooperative relationships depends in part
upon the substance of what is being proposed and its implications for national
interests and values. Disillusion with the results of U.N. and bi-lateral aid
programs has caused opinion in some countries to favor indigenous development
goals and methods in preference to those promoted by international economic
development programs. For example, the Cocoyoc Declaration adopted
on October 12, 1974, by a UNEP-UNCTAD sponsored symposium on Patterns
of Resource Use, Environmental and Developed Strategies, emphasized the
importance of national self-reliance in the development process, excluding dependence
on outside influences that could be converted into political pressure and exploitive
trade practices. The symposium stressed the need to redefine development which
should be concerned with the development of man rather than primarily of things.
It declared that it was impossible to develop self-reliance through full participation
in a system that perpetuated economic dependence.17
In similar spirit, the Symposium on Human Settlements held in Tepoztlan, Mexico,
in 1980, sponsored by three NGOs, urged the transformation of the predominant
development styles which favored economic growth and the concentration of income,
ignoring social equity.18
These declarationsand there are othersunderscore the importance
in cooperative communication and networking in advance of efforts to draft action
programs.

In all of the international negotiations, which are in place or under consideration,
consensus on a common substantive objective is critical. Without at least general
agreement on the socio-environmental conditions to be sought or defended, the
analytic techniques may be no more than academic exercises. Analysis of what
is happening is essential, but insufficient in the attainment of sustainable
development objectives. Development merely designates a process, telling nothing
about the ends toward which it is directed.

The recommendations of UNCED 92 will require implementation at national
and regional levels. Even problems of global scope will require national and
regional cooperative responses. The OAS provides an institutional arrangement
capable of organizing such response for the Western Hemisphere. A detailed prescription
of policies and agreements that should be adopted by the American States would
be premature and presumptuous. Several steps must be taken toward consensus
on these specifics. Conditions for success include persistence, patience, informed
thinking, and networking among proponents in the hemisphere and
the various national states. As no more than a point of departure for discussion,
I will offer a suggestion regarding a possible strategy for cooperative action.
In brief, the following steps might be taken:

1. An Inter-American Exploratory Commission on Environment and Development convened
by the OAS. Mixed membership (official and non-governmental) is suggested to
ensure that (a) the Commission is not constrained by bureaucratic and diplomatic
reservations, and (b) is nevertheless aware of political realities.

2. Subcommittees of the Commission to address the various specialized and technical
aspects of the effortlegal, scientific, and administrative. Expert consultants
to assist the committees.

3. The Commission to identify the needs for hemispheric cooperation, to specify
the issues requiring early action, and to consider the feasibility of an international
hemispheric conference to consider its recommendations and those of UNCED 92.

4. Assuming (conjecturally) a positive outcome of the foregoing steps, the designation
of a drafting committee of international legal experts or the juridical committee
of the OAS to prepare a hemispheric convention for consideration and adherence
by the American states.

Toward what kind of world will international cooperation for environment and
development be marshalled? This was the ultimate question addressed by the 1992
United Nations Conference in Brazil. It is also the basic consideration for
hemispheric cooperation on trade and environment in the Americas. We have the
opportunity, the basic tools, and much of the scientific information needed
to safeguard and enhance the hemispheric future. It remains to be seen whether
we have the political will and wisdom to use them wisely and expeditiously.